Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mikegi
with the shuttle fleet vulnerable, NASA cannot afford to spend 10 years developing a space plane, as it had planned to before February.

Let me get this straight: NASA can't figure out how to do something in a timely manner, therefore,, let's skip it and go back to last century's proven technology?

I'm not saying the capsule is such a bad idea. I'm just very sad that, once again, NASA shows the creativity, drive and imagaination that bureaucrats the world over are famous for.

89 posted on 09/07/2003 8:23:40 PM PDT by irv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: irv
,, let's skip it and go back to last century's proven technology?

I don't think anyone is proposing stamping out carbon copies of Apollo capsules, only that the basic design is sound. Why is it that we haul all of the weight associated with the Shuttle (wings, tail, main engines/massive fuel tank) when all of that is just dead weight. With the old fashioned one-use systems most of the fuel is used to push payload into orbit, not wasted on moving unnecessary parts up into space just so we can bring them back again. It would be like loading up your car, then hitching up a trailer full of spare parts...getting to your destination, unloading the cargo, then putting all the spare parts onto your car and driving home. Doesn't make sense really.

In the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo systems the only thing brought home was the bare essential crew compartment. Everything else was either used up, burned up, or left behind.

91 posted on 09/08/2003 4:57:06 AM PDT by WestPacSailor (Sorry folks, this tagline's closed. The moose out front should of told you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson